Help desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

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 30[edit]

Pornographic Images on Wikipedia[edit]

To Whom It May Concern, There are a few websites that have pornographic cover images on Wikipedia. They are posted below. I am wondering if these are necessary to have with children often using Wikipedia to find information. I realize the extent of free speech, but if these images are deemed unnecessary, then it would be great to see them removed. Thanks for the help.

Sincerely, James

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveJasmin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouPorn

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xtube

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedTube

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_porn

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornhub

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_film_actor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_pornography

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_Taxi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.25.22 (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many explicit images on Wikipedia, especially on articles about pornography, but also articles about human anatomy. See the existing policy on Wikipedia:Pornography. GoingBatty (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. If children can find a Wikipedia article about PornHub, they can find the real website. It is a parent's job to control what their child sees, not ours. And anyway, I think we do a fairly tasteful job of covering such images. The images are informative while not gratuitous. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it intriguing that someone who objects to children seeing what they regard as pornography has gone to so much effort to create a freely accessible catalog of sites that children looking for pornography can use to find it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a legitimate issue here, albeit clumsily worded. From the way their links are formatted, the OP is clearly using the mobile site. Because of the different ways the desktop and mobile view handle collapsed images and collapsed text, when I visit (e.g.) the Fake Taxi article on the standard desktop site I see a sober and factual article, but when I visit the same article on a phone I get only two sentences of text, followed by a screen-full of hardcore pornography. ‑ Iridescent 07:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, I agree. I'm not sure that all of these images are problematic, but I don't see any encyclopedic benefit of having a large screenshot of a commercial porn website on our article about it - it looks more promotional than really intended to inform or illustrate. And, as you say, these are very in your face on mobile. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...very in your face" ;) ——SN 54129 08:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, Iridescent I do wonder why we aren't just using their logo? It does seem like unnecessary promotion of the sites, and its not like we have screenshots of many other websites. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with CaptainEek on this one. I was looking at an article of an actress in many movies (not just porn) for vandalism reversion and the only picture was intercourse and fondling of the exposed breasts in plain view. Seems a lot like advertising. Galendalia^{Chat Me Up} 16:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are pros and cons of having these images, but the essays discuss specific images. I'm leaning towards these screen shots veering into being promotional and unnecessary for the reader. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the issues of explicit content and promotion, I wonder if these screenshots comply with WP:NFCC. Do we really need to show three dozen thumbnails of copyrighted porn videos to illustrate that it's a porn site? SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue for the conservatives really is that the images turn up in blatantly in our mobile version, and not in the desktop version. Just fix that!. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: The technical people at Wikimedia could probably finangle a way to not show images so prominently, but it may well be harder to do so than you or I realize. It might not be an issue of "Just fix that!"

Also, we don't censor for the comfort of "Think of the children!" conservatives, so using that line of argument isn't going to convince anyone. I dream of horses (t) (c) Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with very little censorship. I was simply addressing the fact that our different versions of the one article appear so differently on different devices. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are interested, I opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox website#Should we document that collapsible parameter doesn't work on mobile? GoingBatty (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing sources?[edit]

Is there any guideline etc on paraphrasing sources? For example, if a source doesn't say someone was in "exile", is it wrong to use that word? Conversely, if a source uses the term "working class" does that term need to be used? I think WP:ONUS partly answers the second question, but I was wondering there is anything else. In other words, how close to the source do you need to be, especially in terms of vocabulary.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jack Upland, WP:Close paraphrasing is deemed a copyright violation so you should state what sources say in your own word. That being said - some things only have a WP:LIMITED amount of ways to say them.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm aware of the copyright issue, but it's good to know that page exists. I'm only talking about single words, though. The issue arises something like this:

The source says, "Smith lived the rest of his life in Paris". An editor writes, "Smith spent the remainder of his life in exile in Paris". Another editor objects, "The source doesn't say 'exile'". In my opinion, "exile" is a colourful word, and probably not neutral. Nothing in the source supports "exile". Therefore, cut out "exile".
The source says, "Smith grew up in working class Nova Scotia". One editor writes, "He was raised in Novia Scotia". Other editor: "The RS says 'working class Nova Scotia', so you must say that". My response: no, this is determined by consensus. See WP:ONUS.

I'm just wondering if there's something I'm missing here. Overall, I think it is for editors to decide what words are appropriate, given WP:N etc. Or do RS determine word choice? Yes, in terms of WP:COMMONNAME, but in ordinary prose?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A typical word of English (or any other natural language) doesn't have a single meaning; it shows polysemy, with a range of overlapping meanings. Thus "in exile" can properly mean something like "away [regardless of reason] from the nation/territory that he/she considered/considers home", but it can also properly mean something like "away from the nation/territory that he/she considered/considers home because of the risk of political, societal or other persecution". (Similarly, an expat may just be a person of any kind who for any reason is away from the nation/territory that he/she considers home, but there's another shade of meaning which adds that the "expat" prefers to associate with his own sort rather than with the "natives", and more particularly suggests participation in beery get-togethers for sports events and so forth.) When I look at your example sentences, I wonder why you add "in exile": assuming that the article has made it clear that Smith has spent his formative years elsewhere, "in exile" in one sense adds nothing to your sentence, and in the other adds this notion of escape from persecution or other unpleasantness, a notion that may or may not be in the cited source. -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the problem. I think "exile" is a poetic word, and unless it is meant literally (as you have explained) it should be avoided. If there is a reason Smith can't return home, that should be explained. However, in my example, the source has not said that Smith was an "exile", it has merely said he lived in Paris. Personally, in an encyclopedia, I think we should stick to the facts. If he lived in Paris, then that's what we say. But if a source lyrically said that Smith, rejected by working class Novia Scotia, went in exile to Paris, we should just say Smith moved from Novia Scotia to Paris, unless there is a consensus of editors to give further information. If someone argued that an RS said that he was "rejected by working class Novia Scotia and went in exile to Paris", and insisted that has to be in the article, I think that should be rejected, as explained above.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here's an argument that explains what I mean:[1]--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About my recently published article[edit]

Resolved

Hello, I recently published an article about an Indian regional film actor with all the required links but still, my article keeps getting deleted. I really want to know the reason. I manage the actor and it's getting difficult to produce reasons for his page getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souptic Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 06:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are at Souptic Chakraborty - namely that Wikipedia is not a web host. We aren't social media, and we do not keep information on non-notable WP:BLPs. What's more - as his manager, you have a conflict of interest and should not write about him. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: summed it up perfectly. If those reasons weren't enough for you, your article is also missing proper organizational structure, such as headings and subheadings and there are formatting issues, for example, the numbered lists. Please feel free to contribute to articles which you do not have a conflict of interest for and would be helpful contributions to Wikipedia. If you need any more help, feel free to reach out. WallabyWombat ❯❯❯ Let's Talk! 09:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WallabyWombat: . . . no. Your criticisms apply to the draft in draftspace (or anyway as I viewed it a few minutes ago). They don't apply to the (deleted) draft in userspace. The formatting was imperfect, but it was obvious that considerable effort had gone in to formatting: clearly labeled sections, a table, etc. I'm not saying that the draft should have been left where it was (it shouldn't have), but it shouldn't be criticized for faults it didn't have. -- Hoary (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: You're right. I was looking at the draftspace copy, not the (deleted) one they were referring to. Sorry for the confusion. WallabyWombat ❯❯❯ Let's Talk! 10:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the user had no way to see the deleted version, it's difficult for them to comment. TL;DR for this thread - don't persue something where you have a COI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some general advice: it's very rarely a good idea to create multiple drafts/articles/sandboxes on the same subject. Doing so is likely too cause confusion, as it has here. Maproom (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinsurance Operational Manual[edit]

I have been a Non-Life Insurance professional with specialization in Reinsurance with international working experience spread over nearly 5 decades. During my active working life I have been asked by auditors for a company's reinsurance Operational Manual for auditing the books and documents. Though scores of text books are available in printed and digital formats, they all deal with reinsurance theory, not the operational procedures. So with long years of working experience in various markets, I have prepared a Manual for Reinsurance Operational Procedures. I would be happy to upload the same into Wikipedia and help those in need of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I V K CHARY (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I V K CHARY Wikipedia is not for posting original research. I'd suggest using social media, a personal website, or some other alternative outlet. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I V K CHARY, I would recommend you familirize yourself with WP:NOR policy which states Wikipedia isn't for original research. I agree, starting a personal website would be a better suit for this content than Wikipedia. WallabyWombat ❯❯❯ Let's Talk! 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I V K CHARY, please also see Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO: instructional manuals are explicitly against Wikipedia's contents policy. That said, your manual would probably be an excellent resource for others in your industry, so I encourage you to look for, or create, a suitable place to host it somewhere else on the internet. Does your industry have professional journals that might be interesting in publishing it as an article, a series of articles, or a separate publication? If so, it could be targeted to those most interested, and you ought to be able to earn some royalties from your work. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.161.127 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I V K CHARY: The Wikmedia foundation does in fact maintain a sister site of Wikipedia called WikiBooks. The goals of that site appear to be an ideal match for your work. Do be aware that if you choose to publish over there, you are entering into a collaboration with other editors, who will edit and modify your work. If you choose to proceed there, then thank you! -Arch dude (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi[edit]

This article uses the full name as it's title, but it's commonly known as simply 13 Hours, which redirects to the article anyway. Per WP:COMMONNAME, should this article's WP name be changed to just 13 Hours? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@StrangeloveFan101: You're better off discussing this on the article's talk page. My two cents - the lede clearly says it's also just called 13 Hours, and there's a book also called 13 Hours (albeit disambiguated on Wikipedia), so there might be some confusion without the longer title. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my article[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have put a great effort and edited page on "postgraduate institute of science" with all details (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postgraduate_Institute_of_Science). However wikipedia has removed all my edits without checking its content and truthfulness. I'm so disappointed about this as I wrote the article till 4 am starting from 8 pm on 17th April 2020 local time. Kindly take possible action for this. I have copy of article after my edition and can be shown upon request.

Many thanks

Best regards Prasanga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantilaka (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mantilaka: Hello, unfortunately your changes were reverted on 17 April by Creffett (courtesy 'ping') with the edit summary "Largely copyvio, COI, promotional". Wikipedia cannot accept content copied from elsewhere. This is 'copyright violation' and Wikipedia takes this very seriously. Nor can Wikipedia accept material that is any way promotional and there are also issues with conflict of interest. (Please see the message at your talk page on 17 April with regard to the last point). Please also note that it is Wikipedia's article about the college not 'yours' and it was actually created by another editor. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge user pages and edit history[edit]

Hi,

A while back I changed email addresses and forgot my Wikipedia password. I had to create a new user name. How do I merge the old edit history and user page with my new one?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by HezbollahiFunShip (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HezbollahiFunShip: Welcome back. You can't merge the old edits to be under your new name, but you can add a note to your user page that you previously edited using the other account. RudolfRed (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change of preview font from proportional to fixed[edit]

At some point in the last few hours - or at least since yesterday - the changes/diffs at the top of a preview screen have moved from a proportional font to courier. Not sure if I prefer this or not, but I certainly didn't instigate it myself. Is it intentional, and does a regular Joe have any control over it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaheel Riens: This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Thursday font change. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I checked the Pump, but obviously missed it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Startlite Campbell band Reference[edit]

Can You Fix The Reference I Made on the Starlite Campbell Band Please. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the citation. Best, ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post a new page?[edit]

I created a Wikipedia account recently in order to create a new page. I have the page ready in my sandbox but I can't figure out how to make it visible to the public. Cllundgren (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cllundgren:Before doing so, I would recommend you cite sources in your article. After that, go to WP:AFC for information on the process of making a new article. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cllundgren Wikipedia does not have "pages". Wikipedia has articles. As noted, your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent reliable sources say about an article subject- in this case, a person- showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable academic. Successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is the hardest possible task to undertake on Wikipedia. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. As Jcoolbro states, you may use Articles for Creation to submit your draft for review once you have put sources in it. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to here... Draft:Anthony Boleslaw Gronowicz and added the submit template for you, but first it will need many reliable sources to support the content or it will be declined immediately, good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing Languages[edit]

I made an edit to Henry Blosse Lynch where I added a list of his children, and referenced the husband of the only married child. Adolf Wilhelm Graf von Kessler has his own page in the German Wikipedia. Is it appropriate to set a link from the English Wikipedia to the German Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REPeterson (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@REPeterson: Thank you for your contributions! You can use {{interlanguage link}} to add the link from Henry Blosse Lynch to the German Wikipedia article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out, but I'm not finding the appropriate code. There is no English page for Adolf Wilhelm von Kessler; only the German page. If I start and finish with his name, it self identifies as empty and in red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by REPeterson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at Template:interlanguage link. {{ill|Adolf Wilhelm Kessler|de}} will render as Adolf Wilhelm Kessler [de], with the "de" link to the German page until an English equivalent appears. --David Biddulph (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Counterproductive[edit]

There is an editor who is using foul language in edit descriptions. And he deletes other contributors' recent, constructive additions to his talk page. Who do I talk to for problem-solving?jellysandwich0 21:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Jellysandwich0 You can make a report at WP:AIV, or just share the article or talk page in question here. If you don't wish to share it publicly, you may use the "email this user" link on the screen when you visit my talk page to email me(I am an administrator). 331dot (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]