Help desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 27[edit]

Google Translate[edit]

Hello,

When I do a Google search, the link for Wikipedia shows up in Indonesian. All the other search results show up in English. But for some reason, Google Translate automatically translates the Wikipedia link into Indonesian. The weird part is that this only happens for some searches such as Wonder Woman (2017 film), Thor: The Dark World, and Avengers: Infinity War. Other searches show the Wikipedia link in normal English. Any help would be greatly appreciated. (This just started happening today and it happens on my Android phone and laptop. And it's not my Google account cause it still happens when I sign out of my Google account. Added info: This does not happen when I search in Bing or Yahoo. It only happens in Google search.)

Okay, this is really weird. Now when I search Wonder Woman (2017 film), Thor: The Dark World, or Avengers: Infinity War in Google, the links for their Wikipedia pages don't even show up anymore. Whereas when I search with Bing and Yahoo, the Wikipedia links are at the top of the searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.229.114.181 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar report at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Google translate Terjemahan. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo copy right.[edit]

Hello,

I am making a Wikipedia site for a client who owns the rights to the picture I uploaded. The copyrighted website that was flagged was my client's personal website. What is the process in getting the picture re-uploaded with the copy right flag?

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir McEditor99 (talk • contribs)

The undisclosed paid editing is being done on Draft:Maha Akhtar. SirMcEditor has been warned, but has still not made the mandatory disclosure under our Terms of Service. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that he has now made the requisite disclosure at User:Sir McEditor99. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir McEditor99: After you resolve the issue regarding paid editing and WP:COI, you can read WP:DCM regarding the photo. The photo will need to be under a license that allows for reuse for any purpose, giving permission only to Wikipedia is not sufficient. RudolfRed (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

change the Image[edit]

Please change the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.51.246 (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the five million-plus Wikipedia articles are you referring to? Change it to what? Eagleash (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

where to talk about "citogenesis" as relates to wikipedia policy?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents

And I guess more generally as to what the purpose of wikipedia is supposed to be vs. what it actually is, and policy regarding edits, reversions, citations, and "reliable sources"...

I don't have a lot of experience as an editor. I have tried in the past and always end up getting frustrated with reversions and whatnot and end up giving up. Someone told me once that "wikipedia is best when it merely collates what others have said." But aside from the presence of citations, it doesn't seem to be this way. You almost never see in an article, "so and so published on this date here..." You just see the fact followed by a citation. And when it comes to citations, editors seem more focused on using them to determine *what is true* instead of *what has been said* by the sources. If you look at the example "list of citogenesis incidents", the only evidence of them on the articles is in the edit history. The talk pages have discussions about why the "errors" shouldn't be included: even though they are published by reliable sources, "it isn't true so don't add it to the article."

I'm losing my train of thought but hopefully someone will see what I'm getting and point me somewhere relevant in the discussions on Wikipedia policy. Surely this has come up before. Policy pages say they were reached by consensus... where is this consensus reached? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50B:5BC0:C971:4821:E676:319E (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit: so is the purpose of a wikipedia article to present the truth about its subject, or to present what has been said about it? If a reliable source publishes something, but then later publishes a correction saying they were completely wrong, does that make it more notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, since they have talked about it twice? Or should the original "fact" just be removed, instead of adding the correction, since combined we haven't really learned anything about the subject of the article; all we really learned was that a usually "reliable" source made a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50B:5BC0:C971:4821:E676:319E (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I might be wrong in understanding your predominant issue here, and other editors might guide you better, but your journey for understanding editing better can start at Wikipedia:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Editing policy. I'll recommend that you read these first (and the three related pillars of Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR) and then reformulate your questions in brief. In general, consensus is sought on the talk pages of respective articles, in case other editors have objected to your addition/removal to the article. Therefore, you might not necessarily see discussions on the talk pages of articles for all the additions to an article; but only to those where some editor has objected and the other editor has started discussions on the talk page to find out the reasons for the objection. This is basically the standard BRD procedure. Like I suggested, read the policy and guideline pages and jump back here for further queries. L0URDES 09:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid I might get such a response. Did you see my edit? (and the title of this section?)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50B:5BC0:C971:4821:E676:319E (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I meant consensus on policy.

Is the issue something to do with the content at Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents? That is not an article (it's in the Wikipedia namespace) and so it does not require the normal reliaible sources. Is the issue something to do with a possible similar concept relating to a citogenesis of policies? A place to talk is WP:TEAHOUSE. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you lourdes and johnuniq for the replies. I'm sorry I am so bad at communicating. I will repost questions from above:

1. where to talk about "citogenesis" as relates to wikipedia policy?

2. Policy pages say they were reached by consensus... where is this consensus reached?

3. so is the purpose of a wikipedia article to present the truth about its subject, or to present what has been said about it?

4. and 5. If a reliable source publishes something, but then later publishes a correction saying they were completely wrong, does that make it more notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, since they have talked about it twice? Or should the original "fact" just be removed, instead of adding the correction, since combined we haven't really learned anything about the subject of the article; all we really learned was that a usually "reliable" source made a mistake?

thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50B:5BC0:C971:4821:E676:319E (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"citogenesis" refers to something like this: someone adds some BS to a wikipedia article. Multiple "reliable sources" then publish this same BS, without mentioning that they got it from Wikipedia. These sources are then added as citations to the original BS on wikipedia. The first example in the citogenesis wikipedia article is about s club 7 (a band) and some guy ( a music writer). In the talk page for one of them, there is a discussion where the consensus seems to be that even though there is some information (that the guy wrote one of S Club 7's songs) published by multiple reliable sources, it should not be added to the article at all because it is known by them to be false; it was "citogenesis". I don't care about this or any other specific example but rather Wikipedia's policy about this general phenomenon. yeah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50B:5BC0:C971:4821:E676:319E (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Written before that most recent comment. Consensus on policy is reached with exhaustive discussions on the talk page of each policy, and more generally at noticeboards. The purpose of an article is to describe the "truth" about the topic, but that truth cannot be based on personal knowledge because there would be no way to assess whether editor A's opinion of the truth was more accurate than editor B's. Instead, content is based on reliable sources. Sometimes they get it wrong and the article can be corrected when a more recent reliable source is available. Or, editors might agree to remove a disputed assertion because there is good reason to believe it may not be correct. That is on the basis that if something is controversial it should be reported in multiple reliable sources in order for there to be confidence in its accuracy and appropriateness (WP:DUE). It is not possible to describe a simple rule about removing content—it all depends on the context.

Any assertion believed to be based on an unreliable source (for example, one from citogenesis) should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). In any encyclopedia, if you look up some topic, lets say, prime numbers, you expect to be informed of the mainstream understanding of prime numbers. If there are significant minority positions, you'd expect those minority positions to be mentioned. But the subject of the article is prime numbers, not the history of published mistakes concerning prime numbers. Published mistakes about a topic, when better sources demonstrate they are indeed mistakes, are just omitted. (An exception would be if the mistake had a significant effect on society, such as a published mistake about a politician causing the politician to lose an election.) Jc3s5h (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might find it helpful to think of Wikipedia's policies as a means to an end. The end is a neutral, comprehensive, and accurate encyclopedia. Wikipedia's policies are how we get there. WP:V and WP:RS exist because the best way to create achieve accuracy is by following reliable sources, rather than debating things ourselves. "Wikipedia is best when it merely collates what others have said" sounds like a summary of WP:V.

That said, the policies don't bind us like straitjackets; we're allowed to apply common sense. For example, when a woman changes her name upon marriage, there will still be many reliable sources that say her name is whatever it used to be. Her Wikipedia article should just use her current name, rather than having a line like "Many sources state that her name is [her maiden name]". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "reliable source" that's wrong is an oxymoron. Such a source is by definition not reliable. "Reliable source" is not a "badge of approval" conferred on a publication that declares it to be good and right for all occasions, uses and purposes. The reliability of every source as cited in each instance is individually subject to rebuttal.

When we say "The Daily Blah" is an RS, it does not mean we consider it infallible. It does mean that experience has shown that they are usually accurate, and when they do make significant mistakes they publish a correction.

However the converse is not "symetrical". Some sources are, by their nature, inherently not reliable; examples are personal blogs, social media, sites with user generated content (such as this one), and publications known not to have acceptable editorial control over their content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist query[edit]

The miscellaneous reference desk is on my watchlist. As of now the most recent edit to this page was to semi-protect the page. As a result the page does not appear on my watchlist at all. It will reappear when someone makes a new edit to it. I have unticked all the "Hide" boxes under watchlist options. Why does an admin action such as semi-protection of the page cause the page to disappear from my watchlist? Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 11:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Viennese Waltz: It shows for me. You hide it in User:Viennese Waltz/common.css. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I'd completely forgotten about that. Funnily enough I did that two years ago because I wanted to hide such edits, see here. Now I want to show them again. You can't please me. --Viennese Waltz 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing edit link[edit]

At Talk:Bill Cosby sexual assault case the last two sections don't have an edit link. Any idea why? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK after this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI Question[edit]

Hello,

I work at a university, directly supporting the director of a research center. The director has a 40-year career in science with a CV that is 60+ pages, including over 500 lectures, over 300 publications, several patents, and other neutral information. All of this is accessible via the university's website and is all public information.

I read through the COI guidelines and I believe I would fall under the GLAM section, as any edits I would make to the director's page would be in good faith, neutral in tone, and link to outside materials.

My question is this: am I permitted to make such updates to the director's Wikipedia page without having a COI or would I have to disclose a COI? I don't have a relationship with the director other than a professional one of support staff.

Thank you in advance. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia!

Kh2907 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are employed by the university, then I think you come under the WP:Paid rules which require that you declare this, but if you have not been asked to do the editing, and are just doing it on a voluntary basis, then you just need to comply with WP:COI. It would probably be best if you suggest changes on the talk page of the article, though straightforward facts supported by independent WP:Reliable sources are unlikely to be challenged. Please don't even think of putting a 60-page CV or 300 publications into the article. Dbfirs 17:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I wouldn't put that on there - far too much. Thank you!Kh2907 (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates from the Austin College Office of Public Affairs[edit]

We are trying to update the content on the Austin College Wikipedia page. All of the content is very old and much of it is not very accurate. Everything I've tried to update gets undone. Can you please tell me how we can update the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sljackson58 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sljackson58: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for trying to make it better. Since you are affiliated with the subject, please read the guidance at WP:COI. You should suggest changes to the article on the article's talk page and not edit it directly. RudolfRed (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-spelling check[edit]

Hi, when I edit wikipedia, it always uses some auto-spelling checking which underlines almost all text in red (as if everything was wrong). Can anyone help me turn this off? wikitigresito (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikitigresito: Wikipedia has no spell checker. It's done by your browser. How to turn it off depends on the browser. You can ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Hey, thanks a lot. I managed to figure it out! wikitigresito (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Company logo will not update[edit]

I uploaded my company logo to Wiki and changed the name of the file to reflect the new file name in the article but the logo does not appeear. Only the file name appears. What else do I have to do to get the logo to display?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicklaus_Children%27s_Hospital

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiamiChildrensHospital (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC) — MiamiChildrensHospital (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Working now. You uploaded the file as NCHSlogo.png but linked to it as NCHSLogo.png. The software is fussy about capitalisation. Maproom (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]