Help desk
< March 26	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 27[edit]

How to post article page on facebook timeline ?[edit]

How to post article page on facebook timeline ?

 Thank you!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickm0 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy/paste the URL from your browser into the destination page on Facebook. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are non-autoconfirmed editors expected to create articles?[edit]

I recently noticed Bakuto (character), which was created as a redirect last week, following a version of the character being revealed as one of the main antagonists in a Netflix original series that had too many main antagonists. The redirect was then expanded into a "full (three-line) article" by an IP, reverted, reverted back with the addition of two citations of sources that don't provide any encyclopedic information, then reverted back, then reverted back again. All three article creations have been by IPs. I plan on opening an AFD, but that's not why I'm here.

I'm wondering who decided, when, and why, that IPs and new accounts were not allowed directly create new articles, and if this is just a technical restriction that is allowed to be worked around where possible. My understanding was that the technical restriction was in place to prevent bad article creations and wasn't arbitrary, and that that was why non-autoconfirmed editors were required to go through other processes like AFC, but when I thought about it I realized that was just like my opinion man.

If like my opinion man is correct, was the Bakuto article created in violation by means of a loophole and so should be speedy-redirected and semi-protected rather than going to AFD?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Seigenthaler incident, WMF decided to restrict IPs from creating mainspace pages; if you see a mainspace page created by an IP, either it was created in some other namespace and moved there (most commonly via WP:AFC), or it predates the incident. We had a community discussion about further restricting creation to autoconfirmed users, and there was solid consensus for it, but WMF rejected the idea of adding support for this idea to the core software. I suppose we could always create an edit filter to implement the community consensus. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: Huh. I was under the impression that new accounts were also unable to create new mainspace pages. Thanks for correcting me there.

So ... an IP that creates an article out of a redirect created by a registered editor is essentiallu working around a ban on IPs creating new articles? The Seigenthaler incident doesn't seem to have anything to do with it being okay for IPs to create articles when the pages originally existed as redirects, and the later community discussion you refer to (do you know where/when that was, by the way?) would seem to back me up there. I mean, if there had already been a clear community consensus (like at an AFD) that the particular page should be a redirect and some IPs kept recreating it, no one would be citing a rule that IPs can't create articles, but still ...

Meh. Once I get people to stop accusing me of Godwinning a discussion of a user who literally (as in, not figuratively) had Nazi propaganda on his user page (a photo of a Nazi statue, a statement of admiration for Richard Wagner, and a bible quote about how sinister the Jews are), I'll post the page for AFD, so it doesn't much matter either way.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Citation Review[edit]

Can someone possible direct me to someone who can check references?AbeEll (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but I ran the refill tool at Abdullah al-Harari Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im asking to check this for some citations.

For "Al-Ahbash is a Sufi religious movement[5] which claims to run its schools affiliated with Cairo's Al-Azhar University" it is cited [6] while the actual citation says "In addition, the Association runs networks of kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, and Islamic colleges affiliated with Cairo's Jami at al-Azhar."

Citation [8] seems to be somewhat unreliable as it is from a strange website, and not that of an official Azhar channel as it claims, so it is not considered academic, correct?

Citation [9] is also not academic but rather a self published source.

Thanks! AbeEll (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have doubts about those two refs, they don't seem essential, since the sentence would still be left with ref 7. You could just remove them, but it's probably better to discuss on the article talk page first in case that is seen as contentious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for ref 7, it makes no mention of a denial by azhar whereas egypts own news site says the group is in fact affiliated with azhar here. I have already tried changing this on the page (removing the other refs) but we cannot reach a consensus and a user repeatedly reverts any changes. AbeEll (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why you've brought this to a discussion board without informing the other party; that's rather dishonest. All you're doing, AbeEll, is repeating the same objections here in an attempt to rally support for your own position, which looks a lot like Wikipedia:Canvassing. If you want a third opinion, then there are ways to do that, but repeating your same positions (for which your interlocutor does actually have responses) isn't a fair way of presenting a dispute. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained term?[edit]

Probably a stupid question, but a search hasn't turned up anything (probably using the wrong term).

In an article I've found a term which is unexplained, and doesn't appear anywhere else within the article, nor does it appear to have an article of it's own. I thought there was a tag, much like the "Citation Needed" one, but for the life of meI can't think what it's called. Any help? Darkson (I survived the 525!) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkson:You may want Template:Clarify, which produces ^{[clarification needed]}. As you can see if you mouse over the tag, you can add a parameter providing clarification on what, exactly, needs clarification. I'm not sure if that's quite what you're looking for, but it sounds like it to me. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: Thanks, that looks about right (have just found that on another page I was looking at for a completely different reason, but thanks nonetheless). Darkson (I survived the 525!) 15:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how to make some changes?[edit]

I am new on Wikipedia. I want to make add my company in a list of manufacturers and add some advantages and disadvantages of the technology. Where do I make these changes? In the article or at the 'talk' page?Carlaverweerden (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlaverweerden: I'm assuming you mean the list on the article Electronic paper? That list is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all manufacturers. Instead it's a guide to some of the most notable manufacturers; those that have an article in Wikipedia. You have described your company as a "start-up" which I assume means it's fairly new and has not yet had time to become notable in the way Wikipedia uses the term.

Generally speaking, since you have a conflict of interest, you would suggest any changes involving your company on the article's talk page, and then wait for someone to review the proposed changes and implement them. In this specific instance though, the best course of action would be for you to gather any 3rd party reliable sources that exist (those that are about the company but are not written or produced by the company) and post at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean exactly by a ' 3rd party reliabel source'? Could that be an (editorial) article about our company in a (digital magazine)? Or a pressrelease from an association where we are mentioned as one of the winners of an innovation price? carla 15:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaverweerden (talk • contribs)

Hello @Carlaverweerden:, the words in the reply above are highlighted in blue. This is a link to the relevant Wikipedia guidance page. Please have a look at that but feel free to return here if you need greater clarification. See also WP:RS. Generally speaking, press releases are usually best avoided but articles in reputable publications would be a much better source. Eagleash (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, Carlaverweerden, "An editorial article about your company in a digital magazine" might or might not be a reliable source, depending on the magazine and its reputation. If it is well thought of in your industry, then it might be regarded as reliable; if it is a hobbyist's organ, then it won't be. It is equally unclear from your description whether or not it is independent: it might be, but if, for example, it is published by a society of manufacturers to which you belong, then it might not be. The "pressrelease from an association where we are mentioned as one of the winners of an innovation price" might well be reliable, but is not substantial and possibly not independent. So it could be used in an article to support the factual claim that the company had won the prize; but it could not contribute to the notability of the subject; and it would be up to a consensus of editors to decide whether the prize was encyclopaedic or not (depending on the reputation of the association and their prizes). --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question, but...[edit]

I can't remember what I need to do to open a afd after one's already been opened - like how to the afd template to display the correct link to the afd and the number in question. The article is Jonah Bryson; if anyone would like to take this one, I'd be grateful. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, I created it; please go there and replace my comment with your rationale for deletion. Unfortunately, I did something wrong, since the link went to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Bryson (Jonah Bryson (2nd nomination) nomination). Anyone have ideas on how to fix the template so that it goes properly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Bryson (2nd nomination) instead? Nyttend (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully now moved to correct AFD title. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Messed-up placement of User boxes[edit]

A decade ago when I set up my User page, I had some help on the layout. The Babel boxes were and remain fine, but a more advanced user put the early User boxes not as templates but a vertical set of commands that stacked them. Since then I've patched in a few pre-made templates, and just now they lost their placement. Previously they continued below the right-hand column of Babel boxes, but now I'd rather they display like a (multi-row) banner to the left of the Babel box column so no scrolling will be required to view them. Evidently I misplaced a pipe-plus-right-bracket and messed it up. I'd appreciate assistance in filling in the resulting gap! -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deborahjay: I made some changes. Is it OK now? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter:, this is excellent! And I must note, a better layout than I'd imagined on my own. (I'm a better editor than creator...!) Many thanks! -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False Information[edit]

Hello, my name is Tyler Utley.

I recently came across on of your articles on Cliff Hubbard and found that a piece of the content was false. The false content is Cliff Hubbards birth date, on the article it reads that he was born in 1911, however he was actually born on the 16th February 1912. I know this due to me being his Great Granddaughter. I am new to the Wikipedia account, therefore do not know who to contact with this query. I hope you will be able to help me with this matter. Kind regards Tyler Utley (Tylerutley98) TylerUtley98 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the 1911 date is referenced to "Football League Players' Records 1888 - 1939", but since this is not an online source, so it would be difficult to verify it. Can you supply a source that corroborates then 1912 date? See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to learn a bit about the types of sources that Wikipedia content should be based on. Deli nk (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Vanity articles and files discovered[edit]

I'm not sure what to do with the following articles and files that appear to promote Winston E. Willis and his business ventures:

All of these articles and files were created and maintained by User:Day Street between 3 August 2009 and 22 May 2012. The user only appeared to be interested in these articles and files. The account has been inactive since 22 May 2012. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchumch In regard of the articles, I would think that issues of undue weight and non-neutral tone could be dealt with by normal editing processes. I've added a couple of book refs to the previously unsourced The Jazz Temple : Noyster (talk), 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these images now in public domain?[edit]

Hello,

I'm here to ask whether these images of Farncombe village are in Public Domain. The link is here; [1].

I am rather confused over who the author could be, as I assumed they were taken by Francis Frith himself, but see not; as he died in 1898 and there are photos from the 1960s. In the cases of the photos taken in 1905, and 1895, will they meet the criteria for Public Domain now? There is every chance that Frith has taken the 1895 one. I see there has been a conversation previously about a Frith image before - here: [2], but I am largely coming to you to seek assistance and clarification of when these images can be used.

Surrey101 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Surrey101: see Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights. The table at WP:URAA says it falls in public domain 70 years after author's death in UK, so any photographs from an author who died in 1898 is UK PD (and of course, any photograph taken after 2017-70=1947 is not, barring specific exemptions). It should be US PD as well, but you should confirm it. Wikipedia's policy is to use "public domain" only when it is the case both in the US (where the WMF servers are located) and in the country of creation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing page name[edit]

Hello,

I am creating a page for a film called BFFs. I already submitted the page for review, but I realized that I should have named the page BFFs (film) NOT BFFs (2015), as there are other BFFs out there and we are the film version. I don't seem able to edit the PAGE NAME. Can somebody advise how I can do this? The page hasn't been approved yet. Thank you!!JoannaG31 (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done JoannaG31, in order to change the title of an article, it must be WP:MOVEd. I've done that for you. In the future, you can do it yourself if needed now that you know how! :) Also, I left a welcome message on your talk page with some additional information and links. --†dismas†|^(talk) 00:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]